I respectfully disagree with your editorial criticizing U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello for her sentencing of Stevie Marie Vigil. Judge Arguello sentenced Vigil for the crime of which she was convicted, and at the maximum level of the federal sentencing guidelines. Your criticism of Judge Arguello implies that she should have penalized Vigil for the crimes of Evan Ebel, who killed innocent people. He of course is dead and unavailable for further punishment. He inflicted an unspeakable horror upon the families and friends of his victims. Our hearts go out to them. However, your criticism is more appropriately directed to those who could improve the sentencing guidelines instead of scapegoating Judge Arguello. She did her duty by implementing the rule of law.

Federico C. Alvarez, Denver

This letter was published in the March 10 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

The writer is correct; the Judge acted properly. If there is fault here, it lies with the U.S. Attorney’s office for being too lazy to bring the appropriate charge of accessory to murder and doing the heavy lifting necessary to obtain a conviction.

Robtf777

“If there is fault here, it lies with the U.S. Attorney’s office for
being too lazy to bring the appropriate charge of accessory to murder
and doing the heavy lifting necessary to obtain a conviction.”
==========
Then why did the State of Colorado not charge her accordingly……according to your magic ball that actually sees her being an active accessory to murder?

We can guess and speculate and assume all we want to. But the fact is that, unless she TELLS US that she KNEW what Ebel was going to do……or we can find letters or e-mails or have testimonies from other people that she KNEW and was AWARE of Ebel’s intentions………all we have are just that: Guesses, speculations and assumptions.

And those things don’t fly in a Court of Law…….nor should they…..EVER.

If Accessory to Murder……or being an Accomplice To Murder…..COULD be PROVEN…….then it is the City or County or State in which those murders occurred that “failed to do the heavy lifting”…….since those MURDERS were NOT a “federal crime.”

The fact that the city, county, and State…….deferred…..to the Federal Case the US Attorneys Office could and did file……only indicates that, even after much heavy lifting, that may be ALL they could get……..because anything could not be proven beyond that reasonable doubt.

I am quite positive……that……considering WHO was SHOT and MURDERED…..if evidence existed that could PROVE Vigil was an accomplice or an accessory to MURDER…….she would be prosecuted as such…….in the city, county, State…….those crimes occurred in.

Papa Smurf

As I said on another thread, Vigil knew Ebel very well. She knew that he was a repeat felony offender. Any reasonable person could have foreseen that Ebel would commit more crimes with a gun, and it is that foreseeability, under a reasonable person standard, that should have triggered more serious accessory and/or accomplice charges. I don’t give a rat’s patootie whether the charges were brought by the Feds, or by the state, as long as someone picked up the ball and ran with it.

Too many people, here and elsewhere, want to blame guns when something like this happens. Those of us who support the rights of gun owners keep shouting at the top of our lungs to hold those who commit gun crimes accountable for their actions. Well, Robt, if ever there was a case that cried out for making an example of someone, this was it. Unfortunately, in this case, the system had the opportunity to send a powerful message by doing just that… and it ducked.

toohip

I think your mind of “belief” is working over-time on this fantasy. So Vigil knew Ebel was a career criminal, that’s not proof in any court that she knew he would use this firearm in the commission of another crime. While we can debate probability our courts don’t work that way. You seem to want a justice system that acts on beliefs, assumptions, and “foreseen” intent. Your “rat’s patootie” comment is a sign that you don’t care about our justice system, but your own sense of personal justice based on innuendo and beliefs.
So you don’t want to blame guns for Ebel’s actions? Let’s use the “hand of God” and remove the gun from the debate, and how is Ebel going to commit his crimes? The Clements were both armed and trained gun owners, so I guess he needed a gun to thwart that defense? And you pro-gun owners, do NOT want to hold people accountable for the actions when they use guns. Travon Martin, theater and loud music shooting, etc. And what about all this push-back on background checks, or keeping the guns out of the hands of our youth, or identifying people with mental issues that shouldn’t own guns. Where’s your shouting and agenda there (messiah) now?
And we don’t use the freedom and lives of people to unjustly use as a means of “sending a message,” when the your ilk refuses to make simple concessions on restricting firearm sales and acquisitions, but want to cherry pick a case in an attempt to separate the we vs they, good vs bad guy with a gun. I’m sure Evan Ebel at some point at the beginning of his criminal career, was defined as a “good guy with a gun” and owned it legally, and then stepped over that fine line and became that bad guy with a gun. How he acquired additional guns “illegally” is ALL owned by your ilk’s refusal to put some “teeth” into gun control laws. Maybe the blood of Tom Clements and the pizza kid is on your hands?

Papa Smurf

You have a great penchant for going off the rails on this topic, but this time, words fail me, so I’ll just leave you with the following thoughts…

Sooner, or later, your ilk are going to have to wrap your fantasy addled minds around three immutable, and for you, very inconvenient Truths:

(1) We have a 2nd Amendment, and it’s not going anywhere. If you harbor dreams of repeal, that just ain’t going to happen… the bar for that is set way too high.

(2) The courts, most recently even the uber-liberal 9th Circuit, have consistently ruled to expand the rights of individual firearms owners (see Heller, MacDonald, Chicago (7th Circuit) San Diego (9th Circuit). There is no indication of that trend changing.

(3) There are, by conservative estimates, 300 million guns in circulation among approximately 120 million lawful owners. To paraphrase Gandhi… Quite simply put, you cannot oppress 120 million people if those people refuse to be oppressed (hint: keep your eye on what’s happening in Connecticut).

So you just keep on banging your head against that wall ’til your brain turns to mush. We’re not going anywhere, and We Will Not Compromise. Get used to it. Molon Labe!

goodspk@aol.com

He didn’t have to commit another crime. Possession of a firearm is a crime for a felon and so her giving him a gun knowing it was unlawful seems to be a crime on her part.

toohip

So would be “the appropriate charge” in your opinion? I believe prosecutors only bring charges they KNOW or believe will have a high probability of being convicted of. This seemed to be the case, but they piled on a greater sentence to serve their careers and the desire of the public for “extra” justice.

Papa Smurf

It all revolves around the “reasonable person” concept in the law… given the totality of the circumstances, could a “reasonable person” foresee a particular outcome arising from a particular act? This is often the basis for prosecution under “depraved indifference” homicide statutes in many jurisdictions… in this case, a reasonable person (Vigil) should have been able to foresee that a convicted persistent violent felon (Ebel), who had just been released from prison, would use a gun to commit acts of violence against others if provided with a gun. Choosing to provide him with one anyway is an act of depraved indifference, and that is the very definition of accessory/accomplice acts.

“When a judge determines within his or her discretion to depart from the Guidelines, the judge must explain what factors warranted the increased or decreased sentence.”

Like maybe two dead people, and two wrecked families.

Robtf777

Do we punish Ms Vigil for the crime she DID……as proven in a court of law…..or do we punish Ms Vigil for whatever crimes we want to make up that she committed……..under the ideology that, because Ebel is DEAD, she should receive the prison sentence he should have gotten?

She was NOT convicted of murder……or being an accessory to murder……or being an accomplice to murder………so we can NOT simply “wave a magic wand” and sentence her as if she WAS……because she WASN’T.

If Ebel had been lawfully stopped and lawfully frisked and that gun had been discovered on his person BEFORE he committed ANY CRIME with it…….quite possibly even The Denver Post would wonder if a 27-month sentence was too…..harsh.

Vigil got sentenced for the crime she DID…….that could be PROVEN……and only for that crime that could be proven…….and NOT for the speculations and assumptions that too many people want her to be sentenced for…….under some non-existent theory that THEY “know” what she did.

Vigil was sentenced for what SHE did…..and ONLY for what she did……and NOT for what Ebel did.

$5994987

Arguello, a Bush appointee, recently sentenced Michael Williams to six years for tax evasion.
Let’s weight the offenses and punishments.
Arguello spoke the right wing mantra that Ebel would probably have gotten a weapon somewhere. But Arguello passed on an opportunity to put teeth in law.

primafacie

Interesting observations, but if the letter writer is correct, that Stevie Vigil got the maximum sentence called for in federal guidelines, the judge’s hands were tied.

I’m no lawyer, I only play one on the Denver Post letters pages, but it seems the judge couldn’t “put teeth in law.”

Comparing one crime and its penalties to another is irrelevant in determining sentence for one case. To the extent such incongruities exist, change the laws and guidelines, or bring stiffer charges. Judges ought not do that unilaterally.

That’s the difference between the statutory maximum sentence and the federal sentencing guidelines.

toohip

Great point, that how ironic is that the gun-right have no concern about how firearms are provided, exchanged, or transferred.. .yet, they are the primary ilk that are demanding more punishment for Vigil. If Vigil had provided the firearm to the Trayvon Martin, theater-popcorn, or loud music shooters in Florida, they would be considered heroes. But if this inanimate object is used to commit a heinous crime by a convicted felon, then suddenly the acquisition of this inanimate object suddenly takes on a new perspective. Such is the nature of right wing policies.

Papa Smurf

It was you guys who screamed the loudest about closing the so-called loopholes and making straw purchases illegal. This is an example of why that’s so important… the worst case scenario come to pass. Now, when gun owners and 2nd Amendment rights activists call for strict adherence to these laws, and severe punishments for breaking them, you want to run up the BS flag? Hypocrite.

And for the record… (1) George Zimmerman was tried and acquitted in a trial, just like Kerry Kennedy was. Why do you excuse her conduct, but not his? Oh, yeah, she’s a Kennedy, she’s a democrat, and she’s a liberal… in other words, she’s one of you. (2) The “loud music” shooter was convicted of several very serious felony charges, and will likely spend the vast majority of his remaining life in prison… as he should. And (3) if the news accounts of your so-called “theater-popcorn” shooting are accurate, he should spend the rest of his life in prison, as well.

When are you going to get it through that LDS* ravaged brain of yours that responsible gun owners want irresponsible gun owners held to account every bit as much as you do… maybe even more so, because their criminal acts hurt our cause!

*Liberal Derangement Syndrome

toohip

This is nothing more than trying to squeeze some pound of flesh (i.e., repayment, punishment) out of someone associated with the now dead criminal who’s demise misses our opportunity to exact revenge. Stevie Vigil had no direct part in the deaths caused by Ebel, and who crime was giving a gun to a parolee, but the public is anger over what Evan Ebel “got away with,” so they’re looking for opportunity to lay blame and exact out their vengeance. Vigil’s life or history has nothing to do with her crime, just the crime she committed had to be dealt with the judge gave her the maximum set by guidelines. The prosecution wanted more prison time, because prosecutors were serving their careers, not justice.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.